I thought that it would be fun to discuss the rise of cryptocurrency this week, especially as this month marks the creation/marketization of Venezuela’s petro currency, a last ditch effort by the Venezuelan government to save the economy and reverse the hyperinflation of the bolivar. I’ve seen a lot of self-proclaimed “bitcoin entrepreneurs” across my Linkedin, usually younger undergraduates,  and I think this phenomenon is really strange and interesting. Apparently it’s not that hard to achieve the title, this article, says we can do it in just five easy steps. Anyone here participating in the student Bitcoin Revolution?

Today we were talking about key assumptions and how things can go terribly wrong when you don’t properly troubleshoot your ideas before putting too much stock in them. I thought it would be interesting to think about what assumptions companies often rely on, and how entrepreneurs tested and validated those assumptions. This article contains a number of questions that businesses should ask of themselves, and I’ve noticed, just through pitches and having a venture coach, that the ability to answer these questions, or even show that you’ve thought about them, shows potential funders that you’re serious about making sure your product will be valuable in the market.

This hit the news today. I thought it would be interesting to discuss the merits of the concept of having a governmental aid program, especially after having numerous conversations on the detrimental aspects of certain types of aid. I think the point that businesses, particularly stores located in rural areas, would suffer from the creation of such a program is particularly salient. The points about human dignity resonate with me as well, and I think this relates to Poverty, Inc. because those who are giving aid here may be disconnected from those receiving aid, allowing the powerful to occupy a paternalistic space over the poor. I would like to hear people’s thoughts, and although I highly doubt that this program will be instituted, I wonder how we can grapple with the issue that so many of our nation’s people are living below the poverty line and are struggling with hunger while also keeping an eye toward human dignity and the bottom line of our government.

https://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/how-great-entrepreneurs-think.html

The class discussion on causal reasoning versus effectual reasoning got me wondering what type of reasoning appeals to the financiers of any entrepreneurial venture.

If your financier is, say, a Venture Capitalist who got there by serial entrepreneurship, would they still prefer a pitch by a budding entrepreneur relying heavily on effectual reasoning? Would they see themselves in that person asking for their money? And if they did, would they view that as a good thing, or would they view it as a risk that perhaps, only the could have overcome?

On the other hand, if as an entrepreneur you are appealing to an institution–that which is built upon causal reasoning–say investment banks, would they prefer you speak their causal language? or would they rather take a risk on the passion and spirit of an effectual reasoner?

This article, in particular, seems to shed some light on that, by explaining Saras Sarasvathy study in more depth. The entrepreneurs it seems would prefer to just get their product out there, their first MVP (minimal viable product) to their first customer, and then go from there. The institution, on the other hand, prefers broad market research because, importantly, they can afford that and thus they can afford to mitigate risks from top down as opposed to bottom up.

A big distinction was initial approach: entrepreneurs “sweat competitors later,” whereas the causal reasoning corporate types first did a competitive analysis, in a way of surveying the land as “hunter-gatherers”. While all successful entrepreneurs in her study did eventually perform this analysis, the majority of them said they did not worry about the competition until they got to the funding stage — “intrinsically” knowing that if their idea could work, it was just a matter of how, and the business plan could come later.

Finally, when it came to pragmatic, implementation analysis, the study found that –perhaps unsurprisingly– the causal reasoners were hesitant and saw only limited potential of the product at study. Entrepreneurs on the other hand, immediately jumped to alternative uses and paths for the product, saying that even if the initial launch was weak, that other profitable spinoffs existed.

However, my original question remains: if you took those effectual reasoning entrepreneurs and put them on the other side of the table and now they were the ones to decide who to fund, which style would they choose?

This is an older article but I think it is relevant to our current discussion about legal entrepreneurship, and relevant to us as NDLS students. Justin Boehming (NDLS ’12) launched a startup called “Ironclad” which is a SaaS company dedicated to streamlining the efficiency of contract review. I think this is an interesting space because, from what I’ve seen from these companies so far, they are primarily constrained to transactional practices. Is this because it is easier for an AI program to scan a document rather than craft a legal argument? Can true litigation work ever be automated? As someone interested in a litigation career, I take some comfort in at least believing that AI will never truly supplant human’s for oral advocacy.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/308878

This article loosely relates back to the differences between “opportunity” entrepreneurs and “necessity” entrepreneurs we discussed last week. The article was written by two consultants who claim that entrepreneurs typically fall into one of two categories: “desperate” entrepreneurs or “inspired” entrepreneurs. As you may expect, desperate entrepreneurs typically are just trying to get by, while inspired entrepreneurs are chasing a vision. However, both types of entrepreneurs need to avoid complacency. The modern business environment is constantly changing, and businesses must adapt in order to survive. This article puts forth several strategies entrepreneurs can utilize in order to stay relevant

I thought it would be great to turn in-house and look to innovation that is occurring right here on the Notre Dame campus. You all might know that, last year, the Gigot Center closed and the IDEAs Center was instituted at Innovation Park. Here is some news about the opening of the IDEAs Center. Recently the IDEAs Center has made news by bringing the Chainsmokers to South Bend to kick off their IDEAs week and raise awareness of their program. If you’re a student with an idea, you can submit your idea here. Several great ideas have come out of the IDEAs Center, including a medical device that makes getting shots easier, a speaker in a weird shape, and some fun games and whatnot.

https://ideacenter.nd.edu/

Reflecting on Sarasvathy’s article, the ten reasons entrepreneurs hate lawyers began to make more sense.  Although it is often said that lawyers and entrepreneurs’ ways of thinking are antithetical, I think that antithesis is more a result of how lawyers are often taught to think rather than how a good lawyer must necessarily think.

Effectual reasoning, as Sarasvathy calls it here, can help to practice law by providing clients with more imaginative advice. Of course, a lawyer cannot engage in effectual reasoning to the same extent as an entrepreneur; you do have to take into account where the law is currently at. Unfortunately, the approach of many lawyers is to blindfold the client and only advise about immediate issues, engaging in a very causal type of reasoning. It is this failure that leads to over-lawyering small or non-issues, spouting useless legalese from past cases, and being deal-killers.

Being a deal killer is perhaps the clearest example of causal reasoning vs. effectual reasoning: causal reasoning predicts legal issues and tries to control the world based on those predictions, so a lawyer engaging only in causal reasoning will only see problems in a deal. By using effectual reasoning, a lawyer works toward a solution–a real solution that satisfies the client, not just the “solution” of killing the deal. Effectual reasoning asks: “Under the current state of the law in this area, and our situation being what it is, what can we do? If necessary, how can we make the law receptive to what the client is trying to do?”–within ethical bounds of course.)

By habitually engaging in this more creative type of effectual reasoning, we not only become less hated by entrepreneurial clients, but we can also become better lawyers as well.

This article from a few years ago is written by a lawyer who became an entrepreneur. I spent a few years before law school working for an entrepreneurial alternative legal services company and encountered many forward-thinking professionals who felt that lawyers were slow to adopt change needed in the legal profession. I found this article refreshing as it provides perspective about how legal training can be valuable to an entrepreneurial mindset.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2015/04/08/how-thinking-like-a-lawyer-made-me-a-better-entrepreneur/#52d4b5c61e71